sir, Please tell me whether last line as suggested can be written in
first appeal. or you have written in lighter vein?
On 7/31/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Bimal
>
> Anna Hazare has already apologised to the people of India for the
> irresponsible statement that PM MMS was a Shikhandi made by his team
> member Prashant Bhushan.
> http://ibnlive.in.com/news/we-apologise-for-shikhandi-remark-team-anna/262948-37-64.html
>
> OTH, Prashant Bhushan denies making that remark to the same channel
> http://ibnlive.in.com/news/prashant-bhushan-denies-calling-pm-a-shikhandi/262571-37-64.html
>
> So AT LEAST one of them is a liar.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 7/31/12, Trap Rti <rtitrap@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The corrupt babus has over powered the system in our contry
>> and some of our friends plays SHIKHANDI
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mr Sarbajit,
>>>
>>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
>>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
>>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
>>> vested interests in the CIC !
>>>
>>> RTIwanted
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>>> *To:* "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <
>>> HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
>>> *Subject:* [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
>>>
>>> Dear Sandeep
>>>
>>> It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
>>> Centralised dak and registry systems.
>>> .
>>> Sarbajit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
Dear Bimal
Anna Hazare has already apologised to the people of India for the
irresponsible statement that PM MMS was a Shikhandi made by his team
member Prashant Bhushan.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/we-apologise-for-shikhandi-remark-team-anna/262948-37-64.html
OTH, Prashant Bhushan denies making that remark to the same channel
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/prashant-bhushan-denies-calling-pm-a-shikhandi/262571-37-64.html
So AT LEAST one of them is a liar.
Sarbajit
On 7/31/12, Trap Rti <rtitrap@gmail.com> wrote:
> The corrupt babus has over powered the system in our contry
> and some of our friends plays SHIKHANDI
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Mr Sarbajit,
>>
>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
>> vested interests in the CIC !
>>
>> RTIwanted
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>> *To:* "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <
>> HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
>> *Subject:* [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
>>
>> Dear Sandeep
>>
>> It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
>> Centralised dak and registry systems.
>> .
>> Sarbajit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Anna Hazare has already apologised to the people of India for the
irresponsible statement that PM MMS was a Shikhandi made by his team
member Prashant Bhushan.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/we-apologise-for-shikhandi-remark-team-anna/262948-37-64.html
OTH, Prashant Bhushan denies making that remark to the same channel
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/prashant-bhushan-denies-calling-pm-a-shikhandi/262571-37-64.html
So AT LEAST one of them is a liar.
Sarbajit
On 7/31/12, Trap Rti <rtitrap@gmail.com> wrote:
> The corrupt babus has over powered the system in our contry
> and some of our friends plays SHIKHANDI
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Mr Sarbajit,
>>
>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
>> vested interests in the CIC !
>>
>> RTIwanted
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>> *To:* "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <
>> HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
>> *Subject:* [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
>>
>> Dear Sandeep
>>
>> It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
>> Centralised dak and registry systems.
>> .
>> Sarbajit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
[HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
Plead that
a) CIC is a single public authority.
b) There can be no "jurisdictions" for PIOs within a public authority.
c) That each and every PIO of a P/A is supposed to have access to all
a P/As records over a computer network anywhere in India and be able
to
provide information to RTI applicants.
d) That RTI-dushman Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar should be sent back to
his home State.
Sarbajit
On Jul 31, 5:52 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks sir. now what should i plead in the first appeal
>
a) CIC is a single public authority.
b) There can be no "jurisdictions" for PIOs within a public authority.
c) That each and every PIO of a P/A is supposed to have access to all
a P/As records over a computer network anywhere in India and be able
to
provide information to RTI applicants.
d) That RTI-dushman Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar should be sent back to
his home State.
Sarbajit
On Jul 31, 5:52 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks sir. now what should i plead in the first appeal
>
[RTI INDIA] Re: SOCIAL AUDIT LOCAL TEAM -(SALT)
CIRCULATE
Dear friends,
Mumbai People talk about the pot holes and only complain that repairs of roads/pavement are not good. I have been doing the social audit ever since the day these guidelines have been published. I have come to the conclusion that if the road and pavement trench works are done as per the guidelines, the same will be both good in quality and sustainable too. It will also be value for the money spent.
If people really use properly the RTI and Section 4 inspection we all can contribute to true spirit and intent of the RTI Act and its preamble and my experience shows that even administration participates as we will be forcing the system to work and if system is forced to work then even the non-cooperative or corrupt person has to follow and it will be very difficult for him/her to take recourse to malpractices.
Please note this does not pertain to tender works but work given at ward level and some at central level. A ward issues, on an average, about 600 to 1000 work orders per year.
I have got the whole work redone many times in F/South, F/North wards and G/South Wards, which I could coordinate.
I generally don't put manuals on board but thought I should circulate this to bring about awareness and also provoke action as the road/pavement situation is deteriorating rapidly now. Please spend some time to read fully the Guideline and after reading don't use this knowledge just for making 'indiscriminate and impractical' RTI applications, but rather use the guidelines for effective monitoring of the work.
If you or any person whom you know, wishes to participate in working on the Implementation of these Guidelines in their area/ward, I can assist in forming of a Citizens Area Social Audit Local Team (SALT) and also guide the team onwards. Mahiti Adhikar Manch has started forming such groups in Mumbai and if you are interested please e-mail me at mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com. Please note this group formation is for Mumbai only.
For your information, recently some colleagues joined me in conducting the inspection of records maintained for trench repairs. This has convinced me of this urgent need which prompted this mail and sharing.
Yours in service of RTI
Bhaskar Prabhu
Mahiti Adhikar Manch
9892102424
www.facebook.com/mahitiadhikarmanch
Monday, July 30, 2012
[RTI INDIA] SOCIAL AUDIT LOCAL TEAM -(SALT)
CIRCULATE
Dear friends,
Mumbai People talk about the pot holes and only complain that repairs of roads/pavement are not good. I have been doing the social audit ever since the day these guidelines have been published. I have come to the conclusion that if the road and pavement trench works are done as per the guidelines, the same will be both good in quality and sustainable too. It will also be value for the money spent.
If people really use properly the RTI and Section 4 inspection we all can contribute to true spirit and intent of the RTI Act and its preamble and my experience shows that even administration participates as we will be forcing the system to work and if system is forced to work then even the non-cooperative or corrupt person has to follow and it will be very difficult for him/her to take recourse to malpractices.
Please note this does not pertain to tender works but work given at ward level and some at central level. A ward issues, on an average, about 600 to 1000 work orders per year.
I have got the whole work redone many times in F/South, F/North wards and G/South Wards, which I could coordinate.
I generally don't put manuals on board but thought I should circulate this to bring about awareness and also provoke action as the road/pavement situation is deteriorating rapidly now. Please spend some time to read fully the Guideline and after reading don't use this knowledge just for making 'indiscriminate and impractical' RTI applications, but rather use the guidelines for effective monitoring of the work.
If you or any person whom you know, wishes to participate in working on the Implementation of these Guidelines in their area/ward, I can assist in forming of a Citizens Area Social Audit Local Team (SALT) and also guide the team onwards. Mahiti Adhikar Manch has started forming such groups in Mumbai and if you are interested please e-mail me at mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com. Please note this group formation is for Mumbai only.
For your information, recently some colleagues joined me in conducting the inspection of records maintained for trench repairs. This has convinced me of this urgent need which prompted this mail and sharing.
Yours in service of RTI
Bhaskar Prabhu
Mahiti Adhikar Manch
9892102424
www.facebook.com/mahitiadhikarmanch
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
Thanks sir. now what should i plead in the first appeal
On 7/30/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thankfully almost all those vested interests have left the Commission
> except for one prominent example who has exceeded his stay.
>
>
> On 7/30/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Mr Sarbajit,
>>
>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
>> vested interests in the CIC !
>>
>> RTIwanted
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
On 7/30/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thankfully almost all those vested interests have left the Commission
> except for one prominent example who has exceeded his stay.
>
>
> On 7/30/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Mr Sarbajit,
>>
>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
>> vested interests in the CIC !
>>
>> RTIwanted
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
The corrupt babus has over powered the system in our contry
and some of our friends plays SHIKHANDI
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mr Sarbajit,There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts sectionand the rest of the administrative set up.It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a fewvested interests in the CIC !RTIwanted
From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
Dear Sandeep
It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
Centralised dak and registry systems.
.
Sarbajit
[HumJanenge] Fwd: Help in getting security to RTI activist
I shall be communicating to Ms. A.Dixit in this behalf (with copy to
this group and also to Mr. Peer).
Sarbajit
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ashwani Kumar Peer <ashwanikumarpeer@yahoo.co.in>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:48:14 +0800 (SGT)
Subject: Help in getting security to RTI activist
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Enclosed letters are self explanatory. Looking forward for your
valuable suggestion for doing anything further along with support.
With Regards
Ashwani Kumar
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
Thankfully almost all those vested interests have left the Commission
except for one prominent example who has exceeded his stay.
On 7/30/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mr Sarbajit,
>
> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
> and the rest of the administrative set up.
> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
> vested interests in the CIC !
>
> RTIwanted
except for one prominent example who has exceeded his stay.
On 7/30/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mr Sarbajit,
>
> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
> and the rest of the administrative set up.
> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
> vested interests in the CIC !
>
> RTIwanted
Re: [HumJanenge] Interesting exchange of correspondence between SG and CIC
Dear Girish
Thanks for placing these 2 letters before us.
1) SG comes across (at least to me) in his letter as a hysterical old
woman protesting that her modesty has been compromised. SM on the
other hand comes across as PROMPT, to the point, factual and most
importantly as MATURE.
2) We can see that CIC's official letterhead as his hotmail email ID -
so the other reply (ex-MP) may be deemed to be official.
3) Please consider if asking rhetorical questions is useful. Answers
may be given which would embarrass you / SG. For instance there are
many complaints by me (acting as watchdog over CIC) concerning SG
which were invariably forwarded to SG and he refrained from repeating
his corrupt actions thereafter.
Sarbajit
On 7/30/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> Attached is the correspondence exchanged between Mr. Mishra & Mr. Shailesh
> Gandhi reg. the case which Mr. Akashdeep has filed in DHC. I must hasten to
> add that these files were procured using RTI Act, 2005.
>
> Mr. Mishra says that the nature of information sought hardly matters for
> the case to be taken to such an extent..An official of commission seemingly
> trying to place papers in file backdated, and strangely, Mr.
> Mishra doesn't find any wrong it!!! Besides, what was ordered was just an
> inquiry-if there was no malafide, the officials need not worry...But...
>
> Mr. Mishra also claims that he has not come across any case in which
> directions of Mr. Gandhi have not been implemented in CIC...I have come
> across the cases in which directions of even CIC himself have not been
> implemented..Besides, as I have pointed to you all in the case
> CIC/SM/A/2011/001791, the orders of SG have not been implemented. This has
> been pointed to Mr. Mishra several times also, but he has failed to act on
> the same...
>
> We live in a strange world....
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal
>
Thanks for placing these 2 letters before us.
1) SG comes across (at least to me) in his letter as a hysterical old
woman protesting that her modesty has been compromised. SM on the
other hand comes across as PROMPT, to the point, factual and most
importantly as MATURE.
2) We can see that CIC's official letterhead as his hotmail email ID -
so the other reply (ex-MP) may be deemed to be official.
3) Please consider if asking rhetorical questions is useful. Answers
may be given which would embarrass you / SG. For instance there are
many complaints by me (acting as watchdog over CIC) concerning SG
which were invariably forwarded to SG and he refrained from repeating
his corrupt actions thereafter.
Sarbajit
On 7/30/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> Attached is the correspondence exchanged between Mr. Mishra & Mr. Shailesh
> Gandhi reg. the case which Mr. Akashdeep has filed in DHC. I must hasten to
> add that these files were procured using RTI Act, 2005.
>
> Mr. Mishra says that the nature of information sought hardly matters for
> the case to be taken to such an extent..An official of commission seemingly
> trying to place papers in file backdated, and strangely, Mr.
> Mishra doesn't find any wrong it!!! Besides, what was ordered was just an
> inquiry-if there was no malafide, the officials need not worry...But...
>
> Mr. Mishra also claims that he has not come across any case in which
> directions of Mr. Gandhi have not been implemented in CIC...I have come
> across the cases in which directions of even CIC himself have not been
> implemented..Besides, as I have pointed to you all in the case
> CIC/SM/A/2011/001791, the orders of SG have not been implemented. This has
> been pointed to Mr. Mishra several times also, but he has failed to act on
> the same...
>
> We live in a strange world....
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal
>
[HumJanenge] Re: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
Dear Girish
I hope that you will at least freely admit the following
1) That your original message to this group concerning Nitish Bhardwaj
(ex-MP) was posted/circulated to this group - as it is.
2) That as Moderator of this group, I forwarded the substance of your
grievance very promptly to Mr. Mishra. Before doing so, I had taken
the precaution of verifying the details you provided and also a
PROBABLE reason for his action (which you seem to have missed out).
3) That I followed it up, and managed to get a reply from Mr. Mishra
addressing the "meat" of the problem.
4) That throughout my dialogue with Mr. Mishra I was extremely
polite / respectful and civilised.
5) I think we can safely assume that such incidents may not again come
to light IN THE NEAR FUTURE in CIC(SMS)'s registry.
6) As all my actions were done openly and cc'ed to this group, there
is no reason why other citizens / members could not have done the
same. I can truthfully say that I have got no special favours from
CIC(SM) - and in fact I have not spoken to him in last 2 years.
In conclusion I maintain that if every citizen is alert and exercises
his democratic rights properly (ie. by using right channels in a
decent manner) the system can and will respond.
When the system does not respond (and I will post examples of how I
tackle this) to decent approach then the pressure must be "ratcheted"
up. (PS: For instance I have slapped at least 2 senior public servants
publicly - without any comebacks. I have got a prominent Minister to
resign, I have got MLAs who crossed paths with me replaced and so on),
so if you still think I am stupid and naive - more power to your
elbow.
Sarbajit
On Jul 30, 9:42 am, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> As you see Mr. Mishra seems to have replied from his hotmail account. I
> don't know if we can treat his response as official response!!!
>
> Even if we consider as official response, if you believe what Mishraji is
> saying, you are either naive or stupid or both or are feigning naivete,
> stupidity or both. Consider the following:
>
> (a) Mr. Mishra does not hears cases from files, he does it exclusively on
> his computer. So the opportunity of files getting mixed by DEOs are
> virtually non existent. Besides files of 2011 and 2012 do not get mixed.
> Even the cases of senior citizens of 2012 are heard when the cases of 2012
> being hearing.
> (b) Why did this so-called mix-up happen only to an ex-MP and not to
> ordinary citizen like Mr. Karira or Mr. Mittal? Ask Mr. Karira how his
> files were "misplaced" by CIC?
> (c) It is not wrongly taken up before some others, it is wrongly taken over
> by many others. Mr. Mishra is still hearing 2011 cases and this case is of
> 2012, did it not ring alarm bells to him?
> (d) I do not know about the MP/IAS connection, so I will not comment on the
> same...
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal
>
> [image: More message actions]
> Jul 28 (1 day ago)
> Dear Girish and other HJ List members
>
> I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
> clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
> hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
> error.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamis...@hotmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
> Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj
>
> (ex-MP)
> To: sroy...@gmail.com
>
> Dear Mr Roy,
> I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
> that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
> others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
> first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
> a) on account of the availability of
> Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
> multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
> In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
> mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
> and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
> that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
> taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
> pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
> future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
> accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
> case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
> at the most.
> The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
> because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
> officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
> position.
> I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
> look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
> CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
>
> From: s.mis...@nic.in
> To: satyanandamis...@hotmail.com
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
> Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj
> (ex-MP)
>
> --Forwarded Message Attachment--
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
> From: sroy...@gmail.com
> Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
> To: s.mis...@nic.in
>
> To:
> Shri Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commissioner of India
> Central Information Commission
>
> 24-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
> purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
> Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
> CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
>
> As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
> Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
> the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
> retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
> "out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
> and the reasons, if any.
>
> yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> New Delhi
I hope that you will at least freely admit the following
1) That your original message to this group concerning Nitish Bhardwaj
(ex-MP) was posted/circulated to this group - as it is.
2) That as Moderator of this group, I forwarded the substance of your
grievance very promptly to Mr. Mishra. Before doing so, I had taken
the precaution of verifying the details you provided and also a
PROBABLE reason for his action (which you seem to have missed out).
3) That I followed it up, and managed to get a reply from Mr. Mishra
addressing the "meat" of the problem.
4) That throughout my dialogue with Mr. Mishra I was extremely
polite / respectful and civilised.
5) I think we can safely assume that such incidents may not again come
to light IN THE NEAR FUTURE in CIC(SMS)'s registry.
6) As all my actions were done openly and cc'ed to this group, there
is no reason why other citizens / members could not have done the
same. I can truthfully say that I have got no special favours from
CIC(SM) - and in fact I have not spoken to him in last 2 years.
In conclusion I maintain that if every citizen is alert and exercises
his democratic rights properly (ie. by using right channels in a
decent manner) the system can and will respond.
When the system does not respond (and I will post examples of how I
tackle this) to decent approach then the pressure must be "ratcheted"
up. (PS: For instance I have slapped at least 2 senior public servants
publicly - without any comebacks. I have got a prominent Minister to
resign, I have got MLAs who crossed paths with me replaced and so on),
so if you still think I am stupid and naive - more power to your
elbow.
Sarbajit
On Jul 30, 9:42 am, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> As you see Mr. Mishra seems to have replied from his hotmail account. I
> don't know if we can treat his response as official response!!!
>
> Even if we consider as official response, if you believe what Mishraji is
> saying, you are either naive or stupid or both or are feigning naivete,
> stupidity or both. Consider the following:
>
> (a) Mr. Mishra does not hears cases from files, he does it exclusively on
> his computer. So the opportunity of files getting mixed by DEOs are
> virtually non existent. Besides files of 2011 and 2012 do not get mixed.
> Even the cases of senior citizens of 2012 are heard when the cases of 2012
> being hearing.
> (b) Why did this so-called mix-up happen only to an ex-MP and not to
> ordinary citizen like Mr. Karira or Mr. Mittal? Ask Mr. Karira how his
> files were "misplaced" by CIC?
> (c) It is not wrongly taken up before some others, it is wrongly taken over
> by many others. Mr. Mishra is still hearing 2011 cases and this case is of
> 2012, did it not ring alarm bells to him?
> (d) I do not know about the MP/IAS connection, so I will not comment on the
> same...
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal
>
> [image: More message actions]
> Jul 28 (1 day ago)
> Dear Girish and other HJ List members
>
> I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
> clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
> hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
> error.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamis...@hotmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
> Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj
>
> (ex-MP)
> To: sroy...@gmail.com
>
> Dear Mr Roy,
> I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
> that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
> others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
> first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
> a) on account of the availability of
> Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
> multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
> In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
> mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
> and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
> that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
> taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
> pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
> future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
> accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
> case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
> at the most.
> The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
> because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
> officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
> position.
> I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
> look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
> CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
>
> From: s.mis...@nic.in
> To: satyanandamis...@hotmail.com
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
> Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj
> (ex-MP)
>
> --Forwarded Message Attachment--
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
> From: sroy...@gmail.com
> Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
> To: s.mis...@nic.in
>
> To:
> Shri Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commissioner of India
> Central Information Commission
>
> 24-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
> purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
> Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
> CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
>
> As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
> Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
> the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
> retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
> "out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
> and the reasons, if any.
>
> yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> New Delhi
Sunday, July 29, 2012
[HumJanenge] Interesting exchange of correspondence between SG and CIC
Dear Friends,
Attached is the correspondence exchanged between Mr. Mishra & Mr. Shailesh Gandhi reg. the case which Mr. Akashdeep has filed in DHC. I must hasten to add that these files were procured using RTI Act, 2005.
Mr. Mishra says that the nature of information sought hardly matters for the case to be taken to such an extent..An official of commission seemingly trying to place papers in file backdated, and strangely, Mr. Mishra doesn't find any wrong it!!! Besides, what was ordered was just an inquiry-if there was no malafide, the officials need not worry...But...
Mr. Mishra also claims that he has not come across any case in which directions of Mr. Gandhi have not been implemented in CIC...I have come across the cases in which directions of even CIC himself have not been implemented..Besides, as I have pointed to you all in the case CIC/SM/A/2011/001791, the orders of SG have not been implemented. This has been pointed to Mr. Mishra several times also, but he has failed to act on the same...
We live in a strange world....
Regards.
Girish Mittal
[HumJanenge] RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
Dear Sarbajit,
As you see Mr. Mishra seems to have replied from his hotmail account. I don't know if we can treat his response as official response!!!
Even if we consider as official response, if you believe what Mishraji is saying, you are either naive or stupid or both or are feigning naivete, stupidity or both. Consider the following:
(a) Mr. Mishra does not hears cases from files, he does it exclusively on his computer. So the opportunity of files getting mixed by DEOs are virtually non existent. Besides files of 2011 and 2012 do not get mixed. Even the cases of senior citizens of 2012 are heard when the cases of 2012 being hearing.
(b) Why did this so-called mix-up happen only to an ex-MP and not to ordinary citizen like Mr. Karira or Mr. Mittal? Ask Mr. Karira how his files were "misplaced" by CIC?
(c) It is not wrongly taken up before some others, it is wrongly taken over by many others. Mr. Mishra is still hearing 2011 cases and this case is of 2012, did it not ring alarm bells to him?
(d) I do not know about the MP/IAS connection, so I will not comment on the same...
Regards.
Girish Mittal
 |
Dear Girish and other HJ List members
I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
error.
Sarbajit
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamishra@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Dear Mr Roy,
I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
a) on account of the availability of
Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
at the most.
The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
position.
I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
From: s.mishra@nic.in
To: satyanandamishra@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: s.mishra@nic.in
To:
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
"out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
and the reasons, if any.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
error.
Sarbajit
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamishra@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Dear Mr Roy,
I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
a) on account of the availability of
Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
at the most.
The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
position.
I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
From: s.mishra@nic.in
To: satyanandamishra@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: s.mishra@nic.in
To:
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
"out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
and the reasons, if any.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
Mr Sarbajit,
There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
and the rest of the administrative set up.
It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
vested interests in the CIC !
RTIwanted
From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
Dear Sandeep
It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
Centralised dak and registry systems.
.
Sarbajit
[HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
Dear Sandeep
Please read the CPIO's reply carefully.
They have not said that your 2 letters were not received in the CIC.
What the PIO of IC(BS)'s Registry says is the file is not with him
(presumably because the file has not been transferred to them from
CIC(SM)'s registry.
Th FA should stress that CIC is a single public authority and that the
nodal PIO should be penalised for not locating the information in
CIC(SM)'s registry. It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
Centralised dak and registry systems.
.
Sarbajit
Sandeep gupta wrote:
> Dear All,
> I need an urgent help. The enclosed order of the commission was passed
> in October 2011. On not getting any reply, I sent two letters (in
> november 2011 and then in april 2012) by speed post to the commission
> to do the needful.
> I then filed form a in the CIC. I am surprised to know that they are
> saying that my letters were not received.
> Please suggest what to do.
> regards
> sandeep
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
Please read the CPIO's reply carefully.
They have not said that your 2 letters were not received in the CIC.
What the PIO of IC(BS)'s Registry says is the file is not with him
(presumably because the file has not been transferred to them from
CIC(SM)'s registry.
Th FA should stress that CIC is a single public authority and that the
nodal PIO should be penalised for not locating the information in
CIC(SM)'s registry. It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
Centralised dak and registry systems.
.
Sarbajit
Sandeep gupta wrote:
> Dear All,
> I need an urgent help. The enclosed order of the commission was passed
> in October 2011. On not getting any reply, I sent two letters (in
> november 2011 and then in april 2012) by speed post to the commission
> to do the needful.
> I then filed form a in the CIC. I am surprised to know that they are
> saying that my letters were not received.
> Please suggest what to do.
> regards
> sandeep
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
[HumJanenge] Missing requests in the CIC
Dear All,
I need an urgent help. The enclosed order of the commission was passed
in October 2011. On not getting any reply, I sent two letters (in
november 2011 and then in april 2012) by speed post to the commission
to do the needful.
I then filed form a in the CIC. I am surprised to know that they are
saying that my letters were not received.
Please suggest what to do.
regards
sandeep
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
I need an urgent help. The enclosed order of the commission was passed
in October 2011. On not getting any reply, I sent two letters (in
november 2011 and then in april 2012) by speed post to the commission
to do the needful.
I then filed form a in the CIC. I am surprised to know that they are
saying that my letters were not received.
Please suggest what to do.
regards
sandeep
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
Saturday, July 28, 2012
[HumJanenge] RTI Regeneration group -- Recent Delhi High Court Orders
Dear Vikram
I hope you have read the DHC order carefully before riding off like
Don Quixote to tilt at windmills in the SC.
We all know that Mr. Shailesh Gandhi has crores and crores of rupees
and is agitating other people to fight his battles for him to get
those remarks against him expunged.
Considering the accurate poking he has got from Justice Sanghi, I do
hope that you also don't fall prey to Mr.Gandhi's money power or
accept the offer of free legal services / advocates he will arrange
for you in SC, as it is RTI activists are a very discredited lot
nowadays.
I can also say that it was only a single judge order - which ought to
be challenged in LPA in DHC if at all. As I repeatedly say, Mr
Shailesh Gandhi is one of the ring leaders of that bunch of h****is
known as NCPRI who are out to get RTI movement scuttled at the behest
of their foreign paymasters. I again beseech you not to fall into
their trap BY GETTING THIS JUDGMENT FINALLY CONFIRMED IN SC.
With best wishes
Sarbajit
On 7/26/12, Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear All ,
> An Very Alarming Delhi High court Order on Former CIC Shailesh Gandhi has
> been Conveyed to me . Basically the DHC has ruled that "If a method of
> Getting Information is Available citizens cannot insist on using RTI "
> By this Mecanism or Interpretation Various Bodies can Create such an Thier
> own rules and then RTI will become Irrelavant
> A reading of the Judgement Indicates that such Judicial Interpretations &
> interpretations can do much more Harm to RTI than Ammendements to RTI
> Therefore our Freinds in Mumbai & Delhi and other Places who have formed
> themselves into RTI Regeneration Group have requested that these orders be
> challenged in SC or consider contesting the same in SC in the larger
> interest of RTI
> In this regard a meeting of freinds interested in RTI in and around
> Bangalore a few legal freinds are invited to a meet to discuss pros & cons
> in my house 2nd floor on saturday at 3pm .please come with your freinds
> the meeting will only discuss on this matter and nothing more . The meeting
> will end exactly at 4 pm to make way to yoga classes
> No reminder through SMS Telephone Mobile will be made
> Details of the DHC order will be made at the meet
> Pleae do come in interest of RTI -- your fundamental right
> The Order runs 38 pages
> Details of Order
> WR(c) 11271/2009
> Judgement delivered on 01/06/2012
> Registrar of Companies Vs Dharmendra Garg & another
> Coram : Justice Vipin Shah
> CIC orders contested : 1. CIC/SG/2009/000702
> 2.CIC/SG/2009/000753
>
>
>
> N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road ,
> Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
>
I hope you have read the DHC order carefully before riding off like
Don Quixote to tilt at windmills in the SC.
We all know that Mr. Shailesh Gandhi has crores and crores of rupees
and is agitating other people to fight his battles for him to get
those remarks against him expunged.
Considering the accurate poking he has got from Justice Sanghi, I do
hope that you also don't fall prey to Mr.Gandhi's money power or
accept the offer of free legal services / advocates he will arrange
for you in SC, as it is RTI activists are a very discredited lot
nowadays.
I can also say that it was only a single judge order - which ought to
be challenged in LPA in DHC if at all. As I repeatedly say, Mr
Shailesh Gandhi is one of the ring leaders of that bunch of h****is
known as NCPRI who are out to get RTI movement scuttled at the behest
of their foreign paymasters. I again beseech you not to fall into
their trap BY GETTING THIS JUDGMENT FINALLY CONFIRMED IN SC.
With best wishes
Sarbajit
On 7/26/12, Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear All ,
> An Very Alarming Delhi High court Order on Former CIC Shailesh Gandhi has
> been Conveyed to me . Basically the DHC has ruled that "If a method of
> Getting Information is Available citizens cannot insist on using RTI "
> By this Mecanism or Interpretation Various Bodies can Create such an Thier
> own rules and then RTI will become Irrelavant
> A reading of the Judgement Indicates that such Judicial Interpretations &
> interpretations can do much more Harm to RTI than Ammendements to RTI
> Therefore our Freinds in Mumbai & Delhi and other Places who have formed
> themselves into RTI Regeneration Group have requested that these orders be
> challenged in SC or consider contesting the same in SC in the larger
> interest of RTI
> In this regard a meeting of freinds interested in RTI in and around
> Bangalore a few legal freinds are invited to a meet to discuss pros & cons
> in my house 2nd floor on saturday at 3pm .please come with your freinds
> the meeting will only discuss on this matter and nothing more . The meeting
> will end exactly at 4 pm to make way to yoga classes
> No reminder through SMS Telephone Mobile will be made
> Details of the DHC order will be made at the meet
> Pleae do come in interest of RTI -- your fundamental right
> The Order runs 38 pages
> Details of Order
> WR(c) 11271/2009
> Judgement delivered on 01/06/2012
> Registrar of Companies Vs Dharmendra Garg & another
> Coram : Justice Vipin Shah
> CIC orders contested : 1. CIC/SG/2009/000702
> 2.CIC/SG/2009/000753
>
>
>
> N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road ,
> Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
>
[HumJanenge] Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
Dear Girish and other HJ List members
I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
error.
Sarbajit
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamishra@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Dear Mr Roy,
I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
a) on account of the availability of
Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
at the most.
The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
position.
I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
From: s.mishra@nic.in
To: satyanandamishra@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: s.mishra@nic.in
To:
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
"out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
and the reasons, if any.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
On 7/24/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> To:
> Shri Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commissioner of India
> Central Information Commission
>
> 24-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> A message has been posted to HUMJANENGE email group concerning the
> alleged "out of turn" hearing granted to Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
> recently in a matter before yourself.
>
> As pendency and delay in the Commission is a matter of considerable
> public interest, I would request you to kindly suitably clarify if any
> out-of-turn hearing was in fact granted, and the reasons for this. As
> is very well known, Mr. Bharadwaj's wife is an IAS officer also from
> Madhya Pradesh cadre and her service matters (which are indirectly the
> subject of Mr. Bharadwaj's decided appeal) concerned the DoPT/MoP of
> which you were once the Secretary.
>
> With best wishes
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> New Delhi
>
I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
error.
Sarbajit
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamishra@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Dear Mr Roy,
I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
a) on account of the availability of
Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
at the most.
The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
position.
I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
From: s.mishra@nic.in
To: satyanandamishra@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: s.mishra@nic.in
To:
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
"out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
and the reasons, if any.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
On 7/24/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> To:
> Shri Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commissioner of India
> Central Information Commission
>
> 24-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> A message has been posted to HUMJANENGE email group concerning the
> alleged "out of turn" hearing granted to Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
> recently in a matter before yourself.
>
> As pendency and delay in the Commission is a matter of considerable
> public interest, I would request you to kindly suitably clarify if any
> out-of-turn hearing was in fact granted, and the reasons for this. As
> is very well known, Mr. Bharadwaj's wife is an IAS officer also from
> Madhya Pradesh cadre and her service matters (which are indirectly the
> subject of Mr. Bharadwaj's decided appeal) concerned the DoPT/MoP of
> which you were once the Secretary.
>
> With best wishes
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> New Delhi
>
[HumJanenge] RECONSTRUCT MISSING FILE IF ORIGINAL FILE IS MISSED - PROVIDE INFO.
In an order issued last week, information commissioner Sushma Singh observed that it was unfortunate that the relevant file is not traceable and ordered the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to constitute an inquiry committee to fix responsibility on the defaulting officer. The FAA was directed to provide requisite documents to the appellant, B Meghani, within four weeks of receipt of this order.
Meghani had filed the appeal before the CIC against the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI) on July 11 last year for not providing information to his RTI application dated January 22, 2011 .
He had sought information pertaining to the written test conducted for recruitment of LDC at IWAI including copy of complaint lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI ) in the paper leakage and other relevant papers related to internal investigation reports. CBI had closed the case after the inquiry.
The central public information officer (CPIO) and later FAA informed Meghani that no such record/complaint is available.
During the hearing on June 7 this year, Deepak Das, FAA submitted that since the relevant file was not traceable in the office, he was unable to provide requisite information to the appellant and opined that the information, which is not available, cannot be created and hence cannot be provided to applicant.
The appellant, on the other hand, produced a photocopy of the affidavit of assistant secretary, ICWAI, filed at the Allahabad RTI applicant had asked for these documents only.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Re: [HumJanenge] Omita Paul
As we understand the President and its aids can not be even glanced at by the common man.
Long life to the shredders. Actually we still have hope..
Regards.
Long life to the shredders. Actually we still have hope..
Regards.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:51 PM, AK Bhattacharyya <ajitkbhattacharyya@yahoo.com> wrote:
She has been picked up as Secretary to the President of India-a talented one.
With kind regards
A.K.BHATTACHARYYA
F.I.StructE (UK), FIE (India), FIBE, FIRT
H-2A, Hauzkhas, New Delhi -16, Ph:011-26854127
--- On Mon, 2/6/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Omita Paul
To: "humjanenge" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, February 6, 2012, 10:28 PM
Can anyone locate in the Finance Ministry's RTI disclosure where Omita
Paul is located in their section 4
directory.
Can anyone find out how she came to be REINSTATED after resigning from
CIC.- what is the selection / appointment procedure in these cases.
http://canarytrap.in/2011/06/03/complaint-against-mrs-omita-paul/
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-06-09/news/29638719_1_finance-ministry-bureaucrat-omita-paul
http://www.powerpost.in/2011/09/11/omita-paul-sebi-and-rils-2000-crore-stock-market-scam/
http://www.firstpost.com/business/pranab-pressured-sebi-to-go-easy-on-ril-save-rs-1500-cr-118531.html
http://www.firstpost.com/economy/the-o-factor-in-pranabs-ministry-is-growing-stronger-98887.html
[HumJanenge] GLORIFYING SUGGESTIONS
I suggest this amendment in law, "henceforth, opposition to corruption will be a crime and the punishment for this crime may even be treated 'sedition'.
Govt. should also bring a bill to legalize corruption.
Madhu Koda, A. Raja, Suresh Kalmadi, Kani Mozi, Daya Nidhi and Kalanighi Maran and all others facing charges of corruption should be given medals after the confirmed of charges. The medal should be according to the size of corruption i.e. the person who is found to siphon off the biggest money from he govt. coffer should be given biggest award. Few suggested names, Padam Vibhushan in corruption and so on.
If some funds are required to meet the cost, corruption tax may be imposed on the citizens.
Another suggested, court cannot declare decision on the corruption charges, if found true, decision will have to be reserved during the life time of the corrupt. After that, no recovery can be effected from the legal heirs of the corrupt.
Govt. should also bring a bill to legalize corruption.
Madhu Koda, A. Raja, Suresh Kalmadi, Kani Mozi, Daya Nidhi and Kalanighi Maran and all others facing charges of corruption should be given medals after the confirmed of charges. The medal should be according to the size of corruption i.e. the person who is found to siphon off the biggest money from he govt. coffer should be given biggest award. Few suggested names, Padam Vibhushan in corruption and so on.
If some funds are required to meet the cost, corruption tax may be imposed on the citizens.
Another suggested, court cannot declare decision on the corruption charges, if found true, decision will have to be reserved during the life time of the corrupt. After that, no recovery can be effected from the legal heirs of the corrupt.
Re: [HumJanenge] Omita Paul
Yeh sab gool maal hai
--
"Be kinder than necessary
because everyone you meet
is fighting some kind of battle."
Regards
NK Johri
044-24491003
09444412644
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:51 PM, AK Bhattacharyya <ajitkbhattacharyya@yahoo.com> wrote:
She has been picked up as Secretary to the President of India-a talented one.
With kind regards
A.K.BHATTACHARYYA
F.I.StructE (UK), FIE (India), FIBE, FIRT
H-2A, Hauzkhas, New Delhi -16, Ph:011-26854127
--- On Mon, 2/6/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Omita Paul
To: "humjanenge" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, February 6, 2012, 10:28 PM
Can anyone locate in the Finance Ministry's RTI disclosure where Omita
Paul is located in their section 4
directory.
Can anyone find out how she came to be REINSTATED after resigning from
CIC.- what is the selection / appointment procedure in these cases.
http://canarytrap.in/2011/06/03/complaint-against-mrs-omita-paul/
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-06-09/news/29638719_1_finance-ministry-bureaucrat-omita-paul
http://www.powerpost.in/2011/09/11/omita-paul-sebi-and-rils-2000-crore-stock-market-scam/
http://www.firstpost.com/business/pranab-pressured-sebi-to-go-easy-on-ril-save-rs-1500-cr-118531.html
http://www.firstpost.com/economy/the-o-factor-in-pranabs-ministry-is-growing-stronger-98887.html
--
"Be kinder than necessary
because everyone you meet
is fighting some kind of battle."
Regards
NK Johri
044-24491003
09444412644
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
[HumJanenge] Re: FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER
Dear Pradip
I have quickly gone through the WP. Was this the Final version you
filed ?
Also I could not locate where you have set out section 26 of the RTI
Act which is the pivot point of your grievance. Nor had you annexed a
copy of RTI Act in the alternative.
I feel that given time this WP could have been better focused /
drafted to achieve very specific results instead of being drafted in
the form of a PIL by RTI activist. So here's wishing you best of luck.
.
Sarbajit
On Jul 25, 10:30 pm, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear friends
> Please find attached the Copy of writ petition filed in High Court,
> Odisha.
> Regards
> Pradip
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Pradip Pradhan
> <pradippradha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > *FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER*
>
> > On a Public Interest Writ Petition *W. P. (C) No.10848/2012*
>
> > moved by Sri Pradip Pradhan, leading RTI activist and Convener of Odisha
> > Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, on 18.7.12, the Orissa High Court has been
> > pleased to issue notices of show-cause to the Chief Secretary, Secretaries
> > of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination Deptt., Finance Deptt.,
> > Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief Information
> > Commissioner, Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief
> > Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information
> > Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan.
>
> > The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. V. Gopala
> > Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mishra was moved by the Petitioner
> > through his counsel Mr. Subha Bikash Panda to come down heavily on the very
> > manner of functioning of the Orissa Information Commission, a
> > quasi-judicial autonomous authority as well as the State Executives
> > contrary to the mandates of Section-26 of the RTI, 2005. The Petitioner in
> > his writ petition *inter alia* has alleged that the State Govt. has
> > completely abdicated its power and function in favour of the Commission and
> > the Commission has been indulging itself in activities in the name and
> > style of Information, Education and Communication (IEC), beyond the scope
> > and ambit of the statue. It has further been alleged that such kind of
> > activities carried on by the Commission since its inception till date has
> > resulted in gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune of more
> > than rupees five crores over the years, which requires a thorough probe and
> > recovery from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
>
> > The rule issued by the Court has brought in a sigh of relief among the
> > bona fide RTI activists of the State and the public at large and has given
> > a jolt on the face of the Govt. before it goes for appointment of another
> > Information Commissioner sans a transparent procedure in the matter of such
> > appointment.
>
> > The petition has been posted for hearing of the parties after a month.
>
> > Posted by
>
> > Pradip Pradhan
>
> > M-99378-43482
>
> > Date-25.7.12
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
> > KBK" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
> > website:http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
>
>
>
> highcourtsorderinrtipil_froms_b_pandaadv_.zip
> 3008KViewDownload
>
> RTI PIL filed by Pradip Pradhan.doc
> 1401KViewDownload
I have quickly gone through the WP. Was this the Final version you
filed ?
Also I could not locate where you have set out section 26 of the RTI
Act which is the pivot point of your grievance. Nor had you annexed a
copy of RTI Act in the alternative.
I feel that given time this WP could have been better focused /
drafted to achieve very specific results instead of being drafted in
the form of a PIL by RTI activist. So here's wishing you best of luck.
.
Sarbajit
On Jul 25, 10:30 pm, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear friends
> Please find attached the Copy of writ petition filed in High Court,
> Odisha.
> Regards
> Pradip
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Pradip Pradhan
> <pradippradha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > *FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER*
>
> > On a Public Interest Writ Petition *W. P. (C) No.10848/2012*
>
> > moved by Sri Pradip Pradhan, leading RTI activist and Convener of Odisha
> > Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, on 18.7.12, the Orissa High Court has been
> > pleased to issue notices of show-cause to the Chief Secretary, Secretaries
> > of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination Deptt., Finance Deptt.,
> > Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief Information
> > Commissioner, Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief
> > Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information
> > Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan.
>
> > The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. V. Gopala
> > Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mishra was moved by the Petitioner
> > through his counsel Mr. Subha Bikash Panda to come down heavily on the very
> > manner of functioning of the Orissa Information Commission, a
> > quasi-judicial autonomous authority as well as the State Executives
> > contrary to the mandates of Section-26 of the RTI, 2005. The Petitioner in
> > his writ petition *inter alia* has alleged that the State Govt. has
> > completely abdicated its power and function in favour of the Commission and
> > the Commission has been indulging itself in activities in the name and
> > style of Information, Education and Communication (IEC), beyond the scope
> > and ambit of the statue. It has further been alleged that such kind of
> > activities carried on by the Commission since its inception till date has
> > resulted in gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune of more
> > than rupees five crores over the years, which requires a thorough probe and
> > recovery from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
>
> > The rule issued by the Court has brought in a sigh of relief among the
> > bona fide RTI activists of the State and the public at large and has given
> > a jolt on the face of the Govt. before it goes for appointment of another
> > Information Commissioner sans a transparent procedure in the matter of such
> > appointment.
>
> > The petition has been posted for hearing of the parties after a month.
>
> > Posted by
>
> > Pradip Pradhan
>
> > M-99378-43482
>
> > Date-25.7.12
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
> > KBK" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
> > website:http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
>
>
>
> highcourtsorderinrtipil_froms_b_pandaadv_.zip
> 3008KViewDownload
>
> RTI PIL filed by Pradip Pradhan.doc
> 1401KViewDownload
[HumJanenge] Re: FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER
Dear friends
Please find attached the Copy of writ petition filed in High Court, Odisha.
Regards
Pradip
Please find attached the Copy of writ petition filed in High Court, Odisha.
Regards
Pradip
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER
On a Public Interest Writ Petition W. P. (C) No.10848/2012
moved by Sri Pradip Pradhan, leading RTI activist and Convener of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, on 18.7.12, the Orissa High Court has been pleased to issue notices of show-cause to the Chief Secretary, Secretaries of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination Deptt., Finance Deptt., Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan.
The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mishra was moved by the Petitioner through his counsel Mr. Subha Bikash Panda to come down heavily on the very manner of functioning of the Orissa Information Commission, a quasi-judicial autonomous authority as well as the State Executives contrary to the mandates of Section-26 of the RTI, 2005. The Petitioner in his writ petition inter alia has alleged that the State Govt. has completely abdicated its power and function in favour of the Commission and the Commission has been indulging itself in activities in the name and style of Information, Education and Communication (IEC), beyond the scope and ambit of the statue. It has further been alleged that such kind of activities carried on by the Commission since its inception till date has resulted in gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune of more than rupees five crores over the years, which requires a thorough probe and recovery from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
The rule issued by the Court has brought in a sigh of relief among the bona fide RTI activists of the State and the public at large and has given a jolt on the face of the Govt. before it goes for appointment of another Information Commissioner sans a transparent procedure in the matter of such appointment.
The petition has been posted for hearing of the parties after a month.
Posted by
Pradip Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date-25.7.12
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
KBK" group.
To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
website: http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
Re: [HumJanenge] FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER
Dear Pradip
This is merely a rule in the nature of rule nisi which has been issued.
Lets see how the SIC replies to you. Please keep us informed
SDarbajit
On 7/25/12, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
> *FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER*
>
>
>
> On a Public Interest Writ Petition *W. P. (C) No.10848/2012*
>
> moved by Sri Pradip Pradhan, leading RTI activist and Convener of Odisha
> Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, on 18.7.12, the Orissa High Court has been
> pleased to issue notices of show-cause to the Chief Secretary, Secretaries
> of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination Deptt., Finance Deptt.,
> Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief Information
> Commissioner, Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief
> Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information
> Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan.
>
>
>
> The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. V. Gopala Gowda
> and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mishra was moved by the Petitioner through
> his counsel Mr. Subha Bikash Panda to come down heavily on the very manner
> of functioning of the Orissa Information Commission, a quasi-judicial
> autonomous authority as well as the State Executives contrary to the
> mandates of Section-26 of the RTI, 2005. The Petitioner in his writ
> petition *inter alia* has alleged that the State Govt. has completely
> abdicated its power and function in favour of the Commission and the
> Commission has been indulging itself in activities in the name and style of
> Information, Education and Communication (IEC), beyond the scope and ambit
> of the statue. It has further been alleged that such kind of activities
> carried on by the Commission since its inception till date has resulted in
> gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune of more than rupees
> five crores over the years, which requires a thorough probe and recovery
> from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
>
> The rule issued by the Court has brought in a sigh of relief among the bona
> fide RTI activists of the State and the public at large and has given a
> jolt on the face of the Govt. before it goes for appointment of another
> Information Commissioner sans a transparent procedure in the matter of such
> appointment.
>
> The petition has been posted for hearing of the parties after a month.
>
>
>
> Posted by
>
> Pradip Pradhan
>
> M-99378-43482
>
> Date-25.7.12
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
> KBK" group.
> To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
> website: http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
>
This is merely a rule in the nature of rule nisi which has been issued.
Lets see how the SIC replies to you. Please keep us informed
SDarbajit
On 7/25/12, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
> *FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER*
>
>
>
> On a Public Interest Writ Petition *W. P. (C) No.10848/2012*
>
> moved by Sri Pradip Pradhan, leading RTI activist and Convener of Odisha
> Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, on 18.7.12, the Orissa High Court has been
> pleased to issue notices of show-cause to the Chief Secretary, Secretaries
> of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination Deptt., Finance Deptt.,
> Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief Information
> Commissioner, Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief
> Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information
> Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan.
>
>
>
> The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. V. Gopala Gowda
> and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mishra was moved by the Petitioner through
> his counsel Mr. Subha Bikash Panda to come down heavily on the very manner
> of functioning of the Orissa Information Commission, a quasi-judicial
> autonomous authority as well as the State Executives contrary to the
> mandates of Section-26 of the RTI, 2005. The Petitioner in his writ
> petition *inter alia* has alleged that the State Govt. has completely
> abdicated its power and function in favour of the Commission and the
> Commission has been indulging itself in activities in the name and style of
> Information, Education and Communication (IEC), beyond the scope and ambit
> of the statue. It has further been alleged that such kind of activities
> carried on by the Commission since its inception till date has resulted in
> gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune of more than rupees
> five crores over the years, which requires a thorough probe and recovery
> from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
>
> The rule issued by the Court has brought in a sigh of relief among the bona
> fide RTI activists of the State and the public at large and has given a
> jolt on the face of the Govt. before it goes for appointment of another
> Information Commissioner sans a transparent procedure in the matter of such
> appointment.
>
> The petition has been posted for hearing of the parties after a month.
>
>
>
> Posted by
>
> Pradip Pradhan
>
> M-99378-43482
>
> Date-25.7.12
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
> KBK" group.
> To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
> website: http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
>
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Another blunder of Anita Gupta
Dear Girish
I must presume that Anita Gupta has faithfully recorded your exact RTI
queries of 21.05.2012 in her Appellate order.
NOW you claim that there are portions (marked in RED COLOUR by you) to
your queries which she has left out from her order.
OTH, if these RED colour portions are figments of YOUR imagination
which you expect a PIO and/or FAA to magically divine from the deeply
fevered recesses of your mind, then even Lord Krisha (aka Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj ex-MP) cannot help you.
Also, nowhere in her order has she recorded that you are highlighting
case number CIC/SM/A/001791/SG/17637which is in the Moneylife article.
Nowhere is Aakashdeep's case mentioned - did you SPECIFICALLY ask for
it ?
To settle this matter once and for all, we would appreciate that you
mail a copy of your actual RTI request of 21.May.2012 to this group.
Sarbajit
On 7/25/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbjeet,
>
> Perhaps your understanding of law is different from my understanding...and
> thanks for branding me "unfortunate"...But if you had certified me as
> "untouchable", I would have had access to some more facilities from Bharat
> sarkar..Anyways...
>
> My contention is simple..I had highlighted a case published on Moneylife
> http://goo.gl/lX7qm It is registered as CIC/SM/A/001791/SG/17637
>
> Now look at queries in the said RTI:
>
> (a) Kindly provide case file #s in which CIC has issued show cause
> notices to CPIO,CIC for non provision/delayed provision of
> information..Relevant
> case file is quoted above(although there are several other)
>
> (b) Kindly provide copies of response of CPIO, CIC to those show cause
> notices..Relevant case file is quoted above(although there are several
> other)
>
> (c) Kindly provide information with file notings on cases where
> information is pending to be provided inspite of order of CIC on the
> same...Relevant
> case file is quoted above(although there are several other)
>
> (d) Kindly provide information with file notings on cases where CIC has
> decided to engage services of counsel/advocate to defend on show-cause
> notice(s) issued against CPIO, CIC and/or disclosure of information
> directed by CIC. Kindly provide information on the process by which the
> counsel/advocate(s) were hired and remuneration being paid to them with
> copies of bills/vouchers/challans etc.
>
> The case in which Akashdeep has filed petition in HC.(and many more).
>
> (e) Kindly provide copies of submissions made by CPIO, CIC or appointed
> counsel/advocate alongwith in above mentioned cases before the ICs and file
> notings on the same.
>
> The case in which Akashdeep has filed petition in HC.(and many more).
>
> (f) Kindly provide information with file notings on the cases of
> transfer of bench of cases against CPIO, CIC after the case has been listed
> for hearing with a particular bench or after a show cause noting has been
> issued.
>
> CIC/SM/A/2011/001791/SG/17637..
>
>
> As can be seen from above, the case files readily exist in CIC and the
> difference you are trying to point out in beyond comprehension. I can only
> do telephonic hearing as I cannot come to Delhi for every hearing. That
> day, phone was fully functional, but the call for hearing never came. When
> I tried to call, her # was constantly busy. Perhaps they had kept
> the receiver down for half an hour. Probably she did not want the hearing
> to take place for obvious reasons.
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
> Girish Mittal
>
I must presume that Anita Gupta has faithfully recorded your exact RTI
queries of 21.05.2012 in her Appellate order.
NOW you claim that there are portions (marked in RED COLOUR by you) to
your queries which she has left out from her order.
OTH, if these RED colour portions are figments of YOUR imagination
which you expect a PIO and/or FAA to magically divine from the deeply
fevered recesses of your mind, then even Lord Krisha (aka Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj ex-MP) cannot help you.
Also, nowhere in her order has she recorded that you are highlighting
case number CIC/SM/A/001791/SG/17637which is in the Moneylife article.
Nowhere is Aakashdeep's case mentioned - did you SPECIFICALLY ask for
it ?
To settle this matter once and for all, we would appreciate that you
mail a copy of your actual RTI request of 21.May.2012 to this group.
Sarbajit
On 7/25/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbjeet,
>
> Perhaps your understanding of law is different from my understanding...and
> thanks for branding me "unfortunate"...But if you had certified me as
> "untouchable", I would have had access to some more facilities from Bharat
> sarkar..Anyways...
>
> My contention is simple..I had highlighted a case published on Moneylife
> http://goo.gl/lX7qm It is registered as CIC/SM/A/001791/SG/17637
>
> Now look at queries in the said RTI:
>
> (a) Kindly provide case file #s in which CIC has issued show cause
> notices to CPIO,CIC for non provision/delayed provision of
> information..Relevant
> case file is quoted above(although there are several other)
>
> (b) Kindly provide copies of response of CPIO, CIC to those show cause
> notices..Relevant case file is quoted above(although there are several
> other)
>
> (c) Kindly provide information with file notings on cases where
> information is pending to be provided inspite of order of CIC on the
> same...Relevant
> case file is quoted above(although there are several other)
>
> (d) Kindly provide information with file notings on cases where CIC has
> decided to engage services of counsel/advocate to defend on show-cause
> notice(s) issued against CPIO, CIC and/or disclosure of information
> directed by CIC. Kindly provide information on the process by which the
> counsel/advocate(s) were hired and remuneration being paid to them with
> copies of bills/vouchers/challans etc.
>
> The case in which Akashdeep has filed petition in HC.(and many more).
>
> (e) Kindly provide copies of submissions made by CPIO, CIC or appointed
> counsel/advocate alongwith in above mentioned cases before the ICs and file
> notings on the same.
>
> The case in which Akashdeep has filed petition in HC.(and many more).
>
> (f) Kindly provide information with file notings on the cases of
> transfer of bench of cases against CPIO, CIC after the case has been listed
> for hearing with a particular bench or after a show cause noting has been
> issued.
>
> CIC/SM/A/2011/001791/SG/17637..
>
>
> As can be seen from above, the case files readily exist in CIC and the
> difference you are trying to point out in beyond comprehension. I can only
> do telephonic hearing as I cannot come to Delhi for every hearing. That
> day, phone was fully functional, but the call for hearing never came. When
> I tried to call, her # was constantly busy. Perhaps they had kept
> the receiver down for half an hour. Probably she did not want the hearing
> to take place for obvious reasons.
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
> Girish Mittal
>
Re: [.RTI.] Re: [HumJanenge] WHY WE NEED A HINDU RASHTRA?
| Please do not discuss religion on this board.Its personal. Njoy and practice good --- On Tue, 17/7/12, Azhar Tamboli <ajahar.in@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)